To continue from the pre existing music topic, what are people's views on cover versions?
I tend to have a very negative outlook on them, in that they either represent someone trying to improve on an already good piece of music by changing it around: which usually results in a less acceptable version, or someone trying to "sing it the same": in which case why bother?
I think there are a few examples of where the interpretative version of the cover work - eg UB40's version of Neil Diamond's "Red Red Wine", Hendrix's "All along the Watchtower", The Byrds "Mr Tambourine Man" and so on but by and large there is rarely an improvement to my mind. Is this because one is so familiar with an original song, that any attempt to do it differently seems intuitively inferior?
I suspect that people will like the version that they first take to heart above other versions, and if they first experience the song as a cover they may prefer it to the original. I guess this is maybe the case with a lot of the early Stones work, which most of us children of the 60's thought were original but in reality were very much not.
Perhaps my view is coloured by endless dreadful covers of decent music by talent show competitors, charity records or reality show crap which seem to be released simply to make money and add no artistic originality?